COMPANY & FINANCE |
Company and Finance News:
COVID-19 Tax Update: a Detailed Review of the New
Canada Emergency
Rent Subsidy (CERS) and Lockdown Support Programs [November
26]
On November 19, 2020, Parliament enacted the Canada Emergency
Rent Subsidy ("CERS"). Ostensibly designed to replace the
underutilized Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance
("CECRA"), the CERS subsidizes commercial real estate expenses
incurred by businesses negatively affected by COVID-19. For
businesses subject to a public health order, the CERS includes
a separate, but intertwined, "lockdown support" top-up
component.
The CERS is available as of September 27, 2020. Consequently,
as of that date businesses qualifying for both the basic CERS
and "lockdown support" top-up may receive up to $67,500 per
property per month from the federal government. Similar to the
Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (the "CEWS"), CERS payments come
in the form of a refundable tax credit under the federal Income Tax Act (Canada). Read
the full article by Thorsteinssons LLP &
Alexander Demner & Gloria Wang.
Further Update on Employee Stock Options
On November 30, 2020, the Department of Finance ("Finance")
released its 2020 Fall Economic Statement which included draft
legislation (the "2020 Proposals") refining previous proposed
amendments to the taxation of employee stock options. The
changes had been anticipated, and are based on previous draft
legislation released on June 17, 2019 (the "2019 Proposals"),
summarized in more detail in our update of June 27, 2019. Finance had announced on
December 19, 2019 that the 2019 Proposals, which were to be
effective January 1, 2020, would be delayed. The 2020 Proposals
reintroduce them with some notable modifications and
clarifications.
If the 2020 Proposals are passed in their current form, they
will apply to employee stock options (a term inclusive of
options to acquire units in a mutual fund trust) granted on or
after July 1, 2021. The 2019 Proposals, by contrast, were to
become effective January 1, 2020. Importantly, the 2020
Proposals would preserve treatment under the current rules for
option agreements made on or after July 1, 2021 that result
from an exchange of options (originally granted prior to July
1, 2021) to which subsection 7(1.4) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the
"Act") applies. Read the full article by Mark Firman with Stikeman Elliott LLP.
Fall Economic Statement 2020 – Key Tax
Announcements
On Nov. 30, 2020, The Honourable Chrystia Freeland tabled the
Fall Economic Statement 2020 (the Statement). The Statement
proposes short-term pandemic relief measures, including more
support for families and those working remotely from home, as
well as extensions of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS)
and the Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy (CERS). The Statement
also provides a preview of longer-term initiatives aimed at
tackling this year's $381 billion fiscal deficit. Of note, the
Government announced that it will impose GST/HST on many
digital products, goods supplied through fulfillment
warehouses, and platform-based short-term accommodation and
that it is moving forward with the previously announced
$200,000 annual limit on employee stock options eligible for
the stock option deduction. Read the full article by Ryma Sachedina, Elizabeth Egberts, Joseph Marando, Craig J. Webster, Braek Urquhart, Shannon James, Beverly Gilbert and Pamela L. Cross with Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP
BC Securities – Policies & Instruments
The following policies and instruments were recently published
on the BCSC website:
- 51-518 – BC Instrument 51-518 Temporary
Exemption from Certain Business Acquisition Report
Requirements
- 25-302 – CSA Staff Notice 25-302
- Matters Relating to CDOR, LIBOR and Other Interest
Rate Benchmarks
- 51-361 – CSA Multilateral Staff
Notice 51-361 Continuous Disclosure Review Program
Activities for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2020 and
March 31, 2019
For more information visit the BC Securities website.
PST Bulletins – December 1st
The following PST Bulletins were published by the government on
December 1st:
Bulletin PST 003, Small Sellers, has been
revised to clarify that you do not qualify as a small seller if
you sell vapour products in the ordinary course of your
business.
Bulletin PST 004, Direct Sellers and
Independent Sales Contractors, has been revised to clarify that
exclusive products cannot be vapour products.
Bulletin PST 204, Bicycles and Tricycles,
has been revised to update the Converting Bicycles to
Electric-Assist section to:
- Clarify how PST applies to electric conversions
- Correct an error in the example regarding the child seat
Bulletin PST 312, Gifts, has been revised
to clarify that PST applies to vapour products at the rate of
20%.
Visit the "What's New in BC Sales Taxes" website for more information.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Administrative Penalties Regulation (22/2013) |
Nov. 1/20 |
by Reg 227/2020 |
Business Corporations Regulation (65/2004) |
Nov. 30/20 |
by Reg 250/2020 |
Contravention of Prescribed Provisions Regulation (566/2004) |
Nov. 1/20 |
by Reg 227/2020 |
Financial Products Disclosure Regulation (573/2004) (formerly
titled Marketing of Financial Products Regulation) |
Nov. 1/20 |
by Reg 227/2020 |
Prescribed Offences Regulation (576/2004) |
Nov. 1/20 |
by Reg 227/2020 |
ENERGY & MINES |
Energy and Mines News:
$18-Billion LNG Project Projected to Meet
Mid-decade
Start Despite COVID-19 Delays
LNG Canada project had to cut in half its 1,500 workforce in
the spring because of safety concerns related to the
coronavirus pandemic. The $18-billion project will liquefy
natural gas from northeast BC in a plant at Kitimat in
northwest BC, where it will be loaded onto ships and
transported to Asian markets.
It is the only project that moved ahead to the
construction phase among several that had been proposed in BC
to tap into growing demand for energy in Asia and diversify
from reliance on export to the U.S. The major players backing
the project include Shell, Malaysian state-owned Petronas,
state-owned PetroChina, Mitsubishi in Japan and South Korea's
KOGAS. Read the Vancouver Sun article.
Recent BCOGC Bulletins
The BCOGC has recently issued the following bulletin:
- INDB 2020-25 – Dormant Sites
Annual Work Plan and Annual Report Submission Changes
- IB 2020-09 – AMS Payment to be
Renamed as ePayment
- IB 2020-10 – Disposal Well Near
Hudson's Hope Decommissioned
Visit the BCOGC website to view this and other
bulletins.
|
Act or Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Fuel Price Transparency Regulation (52/2020) |
Nov. 1/20 |
by Reg 213/2020 |
Zero-Emission Vehicles Act |
Nov. 1/20 |
by 2019 Bill 28, c. 29, sections 17 and 18 only (in force Reg. 196/2020), Zero-Emission Vehicles Act |
Zero-Emission Vehicles Regulation (196/2020) |
Nov. 1/20 |
by Reg. 196/2020 |
FAMILY
& CHILDREN |
Family and Children
News:
60-Year Old Spouse Receives More Than 50% of
Family Property Upon Separation
In Cook v. Cook 2020 BCSC 389 the issue was whether
fairness, after a 38-year marriage, required a reapportionment
of property in favour of Mrs. Cook, or compensatory spousal
support. The parties were 60 and 61 respectively. The facts
revealed that the end of their marriage accompanied Mr. Cook's
receipt of a $425,000 inheritance and a cottage property,
(excluded property) a windfall that he failed to disclose to
his wife. At the same time, he changed his will to benefit
their adult children.
The court noted that taking into account Mr. Cook's excluded
property, he was leaving the marriage with assets valued at
more than half of a million dollars more than his wife. Quoting
Moge v. Moge SCC and Chutter v. Chutter
BCCA, the court recited the legal maxim that "the longer the
duration of the marriage, the closer the economic union, the
greater will be the claim to an equal standard of living upon
marriage dissolution." Read the full article by Georgialee Lang published
on her blog "Lawdiva's Blog".
Shift Changes May Impact on Childcare Arrangements
But That Is Not Discriminatory
In Ziegler v. Pacific Blue Cross (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 125, the BC Human Rights
Tribunal (Tribunal) determined that Pacific Blue Cross (PBC)
did not discriminate against Ms. Ziegler on the basis of family
status when it imposed a change to her work schedule that
impacted on her childcare arrangements. The Tribunal dismissed
the complaint. Ms. Ziegler was employed by PBC, a unionized
workplace in Burnaby. At the time the complaint was made, she
had a one-year child who was enrolled in a daycare near her
home in Langley. Read the full article by Scott Marcinkow with
Harper Grey LLP.
Spotlight on Child Protection: Disclosure
BCLI is running a public consultation (closing date: 15 January
2021) on child protection. It is asking for public input into
its proposed changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act.
For information on how to participate in the consultation
please visit the Modernizing the Child, Family and
Community Service Act Project webpage. This post
is part of a series that spotlights issues discussed in the Consultation Paper on Modernizing the
Child, Family and Community Service Act. To read
other posts in the series please click here. Read the full article by Kevin Zakreski with the
BC Law Institute.
|
Act or Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
There
were no amendments this month. |
FOREST
& ENVIRONMENT |
Forest and Environment News:
Early Consolidation of Contaminated Sites Regulation
& EMA
For your convenience, Quickscribe has published an
early consolidated version of the Contaminated Sites Regulation, B.C. Reg.
375/96, and Environmental Management Act as
they will read on February 1, 2021, once Bill 17, Environmental Management
Amendment Act, 2019, comes into law. Originally
introduced in May 2019, Bill 17 intends to streamline and
simplify site identifications while capturing contaminated
sites that were previously left unregulated. Among other
changes, there is a new requirement that a site disclosure
statement be submitted to the registrar as opposed to the
director. The operator and owner of the property now have added
responsibilities to ensure the person associated with the
contaminated site is captured in the disclosure requirements.
The amendments will allow for more focus on ministry resources
on high-risk sites and overall compliance verification and
enforcement, with the overall result of increased protection
for human health and the environment. The changes address
issues raised during the initial consultation with industry,
other ministries, local governments and Indigenous nations
across the province. These and other early consolidated
legislation can be found on the "Special Early Consolidations" page via
the left navigation on Quickscribe.
Federal Government Introduces Bill C-12 to Mandate
2050 Net-Zero Emission Requirements
On November 19, 2020, the federal government
introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian Net-Zero
Emissions Accountability Act, the latest in a series of
federal government initiatives aimed at satisfying Canada's
obligations under the Paris Agreement, which establishes the
framework for national greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets to attain net-zero emissions by 2050.
The main features of Bill C-12 include:
- the requirement to set national greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets for each milestone year of 2030, 2035,
2040, and 2045, culminating in a national net-zero emission
target by 2050;
Read the full article by Thomas McInerney, Sharon
Singh, Radha Curpen, Parker Mckibbon and Kenryo Mizutani With
Bennett Jones LLP.
Environmental Appeal Board Decisions
There was one Environmental Appeal Board decision in the month
of September:
Water Sustainability Act
Wildlife Act
Visit the Environmental Appeal Board website
for more information.
|
Act or Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Zero-Emission Vehicles Act |
Nov. 1/20 |
by 2019 Bill 28, c. 29, sections 17 and 18 only (in force Reg 196/2020), Zero-Emission Vehicles Act |
Zero-Emission Vehicles Regulation (196/2020) |
Nov. 1/20 |
by Reg 196/2020 |
HEALTH |
Health News:
Review Recommends Steps to Solve Widespread
Racism in BC Health Care
Indigenous people in British Columbia are exposed to widespread
racism that often results in negative experiences at the point
of care, inequitable medical treatment, physical harm and even
death, the independent review into Indigenous-specific
discrimination in the province's health-care system has found.
Informed by the voices of nearly 9,000 Indigenous patients,
family members, third-party witnesses and health-care workers,
as well as unprecedented analysis of health data, the review
found clear evidence of pervasive interpersonal and systemic
racism that adversely affects not only patient and family
experiences but also long-term health outcomes for Indigenous
peoples.
The report, In Plain Sight: Addressing Indigenous-specific
Racism and Discrimination in BC Health Care, concludes that
this problem is widely acknowledged by many who work in the
system, including those in leadership positions. The report
makes 24 recommendations to address what is a systemic problem,
deeply rooted in colonialism. Read the full government news release.
Access to PharmaNet
Effective December 1, changes to the Information
Management Regulation require all new users who need PharmaNet
to deliver direct patient care to enrol in PRIME.
Discriminatory on the Basis of Mental Illness
After a year's delay due in part to the pandemic,
Parliament is considering a bill to change the Medical
Assistance in Dying (MAiD) regime to comply with the Truchon
ruling in Quebec. The province's Superior Court has granted the
federal government an extension until December to update its
legislation to conform to the ruling. The Canadian Bar
Association has taken the position that the bill doesn't go far
enough toward addressing the Truchon ruling, as well
as the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Carter that initially struck down the
federal prohibition on physician-assisted dying.
"The government is doing its best with the limited time that
they have to respond to the Truchon decision," says
David Roberge, a partner at McCarthy Tétrault in
Montreal and member of the CBA's End of Life Working Group.
"And overall, they consulted a lot of people and they've taken
into account a lot of points of view, as much as they could,
but the exclusion of all persons with mental illness is likely
to be constitutionally challenged." Read the full article by Dale Smith, published in
the CBA National.
COVID-19: More than 100 Fines Issued in BC to
People Breaking Health, Quarantine Orders
A total of 105 fines – totalling more than $100,000
– have been issued to individuals since late August for
breaking health orders or federal quarantine rules. The rundown
of tickets being issued was shared Tuesday evening [November
11] in a statement from the BC government formally extending
the province's state-of-emergency declaration. Read the Vancouver
Sun article.
Changes to COVID-19 Legislation
On November 24, M425/2020, the Use of Face Coverings in
Indoor Public Spaces (COVID-19) Order, was made and
incorporated as a provision in the COVID-19 Related Measures Act.
The Violation Ticket Administration and Fines
Regulation was also updated to set out the fines for
contravening specific provisions of the Order:
Item 23.6 of Schedule 2
Use of Face Coverings in Indoor Public Spaces (COVID-19)
Order |
|
Contravention |
Fine |
Victim
Surcharge
Levy |
Ticketed
Amount |
|
Fail to wear face covering in indoor public space |
$200 |
$30 |
$230 |
|
Abusive or belligerent behaviour |
$200 |
$30 |
$230 |
|
Fail to comply with direction from enforcement officer |
$200 |
$30 |
$230 |
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
COVID-19 Related Measures Act |
Nov. 9/20 |
by Reg 267/2020 |
Nov. 13/20 |
by Reg 269/2020 |
Nov. 24/20 |
by Reg 271/2020 |
Information Management Regulation (74/2015) |
Dec. 1/20 |
by Reg 74/2015 |
LABOUR
& EMPLOYMENT |
Labour and Employment News:
Harvey v Gibraltar – The Latest
Development in the Test for
Discrimination on the Basis of Family Status in BC
The BC Human Rights Tribunal's (the "Tribunal") decision in Harvey
v. Gibraltar Mines Ltd. (No. 2), 2020 BCHRT 193 ("Harvey"), is the latest
in a series of cases clarifying the test for discrimination on
the basis of family status in BC.
Ms. Harvey and her husband both worked the same 12-hour shift
at Gibraltar Mines Ltd. ("Gibraltar"). Upon returning from
maternity leave in 2017, Ms. Harvey asked her supervisor if she
and her husband could work different shifts, so that they could
access childcare. She proposed two options that would allow
them to work slightly different hours but continue to share
some time off. Her supervisor rejected these proposals and
suggested instead that Ms. Harvey or her husband switch to an
opposing 12-hour shift, either permanently or until they could
find a better childcare solution. Ms. Harvey rejected this
suggestion on the basis that working opposite shifts would
negatively affect their family. She then brought a claim
alleging that Gibraltar failed to accommodate her by denying
her request and discriminated against her on the basis of
family status, marital status, and sex, contrary to s. 13 of
the BC Human Rights Code, RSBC 1996, c.
210 (the "Code"). Gibraltar applied to have the complaint
dismissed, arguing that the facts pled did not disclose a
breach of the Code, that the complaint had no reasonable
prospect of success, and that it would not further the purposes
of the Code, pursuant to ss. 27(1)(b), (c) and (d)(ii). Read
the full article by Abigail Cheung and
Heather Mallabone with McCarthy Tétrault LLP.
Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Scope of
Adverse Effect Discrimination
In Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 SCC 28, the Supreme Court of Canada
found that a workplace policy of the RCMP amounted to unlawful
discrimination because it indirectly institutionalized and
perpetuated a long-standing source of economic disadvantage for
women.
The case involved three female RCMP officers who participated
in a job-sharing program in order to work reduced hours when
their children were young. The RCMP had a pension "buy-back"
policy which allowed officers who had taken a leave from work
to "buy back" pension credits to erase gaps in full-time
service. The RCMP informed the three officers that the
job-sharing program constituted part-time work, and as a
result, the officers could not benefit from the pension
"buy-back" policy. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the
RCMP's policy amounted to unlawful adverse effect
discrimination. Read the full article by Titus Totan & Alice Wang (Articling Student) with DLA
Piper.
When Can Employees Claim
Payment for Travel Time?
It is not uncommon for disputes to arise about employees'
eligibility for payment for travel time. Employment law
regarding travel time can be complicated. Therefore, British
Columbia employers are advised to draft a company policy that includes
information about travel time in the employment contracts when
new staff members are appointed.
Here is what the BC Employment Standards Act says
about paid and unpaid travel time:
Commute time:
The time spent travelling to and from work is not regarded as
work time. It is important to note that this applies even if
the worker drives a company vehicle or if another employee or
the employer picks up the worker.
Read the full article published by Overholt Law
and posted in Labour and Employment Law on Thursday,
November 26, 2020.
|
Act or Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Employment and Assistance Regulation
(263/2002) |
Nov. 9/20 |
by Reg 268/2020 |
Dec. 1/20 |
by Reg 270/2020 |
Employment and Assistance for Persons
with Disabilities Regulation (265/2002) |
Nov. 9/20 |
by Reg 268/2020 |
Dec. 1/20 |
by Reg 270/2020 |
Salary Range Regulation (152/2017) |
Dec. 1/20 |
by Reg 274/2020 |
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT |
Local Government News:
ALR Update: What Local Governments Need to Know
The regulations under the Agricultural Land Commission Act
have undergone significant and swift recent changes, with
potentially far-reaching effects on local governments' powers
and limitations when it comes to regulating in respect of farm
lands within their jurisdiction. Examples of such changes are
the changes to the application process to exclude land from the
Agricultural Land Reserve and new land-use regulations for land
designated within the Agricultural Land Reserve. This update
will discuss these recent changes and potential issues of which
local governments should be aware. Download the PDF article published by Bill Buholzer,
Elizabeth Anderson and Steven Shergill of Young Anderson
Barristers & Solicitors.
Vancouver Council Unanimously Approves Motion to
Seek Decriminalization of Drug Possession
If approved by Ottawa, city would become first in Canada to
decriminalize simple possession. Vancouver city councillors
have voted unanimously in favour of a motion to ask the federal
government for the legal power to decriminalize simple
possession of illicit drugs. The vote Wednesday night [November
25] means the city will ask the federal government for an
exemption from the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
to allow the possession of small amounts of illegal substances
within the city's boundaries.
If successful, Vancouver will become the first jurisdiction
in Canada to decriminalize simple possession. Mayor Kennedy
Stewart said Wednesday that he was grateful for the support of
councillors, as well as the advocacy of drug users and their
allies who have been pushing for decriminalization for years.
Read the CBC article.
The Limitation Defence in the Public Authorities
Context:
A Tool for Disposing of Claims Summarily
The civic functions performed by many public authorities put
their employees in routine contact with members of the public.
As can be expected, their public-facing nature will
consequently make these public bodies and their employees the
target of some frivolous litigation. The finite time and
financial resources available to address these nuisance claims
are an unfortunate reality that strains the legal budgets of
public authorities and acts as a drain on the use of limited
court resources. Addressing and disposing of such claims in a
time and cost-sensitive manner is in the best interest of the
public authority so that these organizations and their legal
counsel can focus their time and resources on more pressing
legal matters.
While every claim is subject to the general two-year
limitation period in the Limitation Act, local government
defendants have access to additional, shorter statutory periods
that apply in certain circumstances. Legal counsel acting in
the defence of public authorities should be familiar with the
various statutory limitation periods that apply to public
bodies and how these can be used to promptly dispose of court
actions or threats of litigation. When a plaintiff or their
counsel make the fatal error of missing a statutory limitation
period it will almost certainly act as a bar to their claim and
insulate the public authority from liability and further
litigation.
On November 3, 2020 reasons were released in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia case Nungwana v. Canada (Attorney
General), 2020 BCSC 1634, which provides a clear
example of when the limitation defence can be utilized to
promptly dispose of a claim made against a public authority.
Read the full article by Josh Krusell with Stewart
McDannold Stuart.
Coquitlam Granted Leave to Appeal in Fortis Dispute
The BC Court of Appeal has approved a City of Coquitlam
application to appeal an order by the BC Utilities Commission
(BCUC) that allowed Fortis to abandon a decommissioned gas
pipeline running through City lands. The order had directed the
City and Fortis to share the cost of removing the pipeline to
allow for the installation of municipal infrastructure. UBCM
provided an affidavit to the Court in support of Coquitlam that
advanced the argument this was an application that could impact
local governments across British Columbia.
UBCM involvement in legal appeals is limited to instances
where the matter in dispute could have a broad impact to other
local governments in British Columbia. The City was granted
leave to appeal in a ruling by the BC Court of Appeal on
October 7. The Court of Appeal ruling references the UBCM
affidavit in its decision as follows, including the need for
greater jurisdictional clarity over decommissioned
infrastructure and the consequences of the BCUC decision for
local government budgets and planning. Read the UBCM article.
COVID-19 Resilience Infrastructure Stream
On December 1, 2020, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Emergency Management BC announced the launch of the new
$136 million COVID-19 Resilience Infrastructure Stream (CVRIS)
under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP).
The CVRIS will support projects that focus on retrofits,
rehabilitation and upgrades to existing local government and
indigenous community buildings, COVID-19 response
infrastructure, active transportation and disaster mitigation.
Read UBCM article.
How are the Courts Approaching the Duty of Care in
Negligence Claims Against Local Governments
Recent decisions indicate that the courts are more reserved in
their approach to the question of whether local governments owe
a duty of care in cases where claimants have sought to extend
municipal negligence liability beyond traditional areas such as
building inspection and road maintenance. Additionally, for the
first time in over 20 years the Supreme Court of Canada is
taking on a municipal negligence case that raises the important
question of whether the policy/operational analysis should be
retained to determine when municipal decisions are immune from
a duty of care. The prospect for significant change in the law
of municipal negligence law from these cases will be
considered. Download the full PDF article by Barry Williamson and
Sarah Strukoff, Articled Student, with Young Anderson
Barristers & Solicitors.
Funding & Resources Update
Applications are currently being accepted for the
following funding programs. A complete and chronological
listing (by intake deadline) of currently offered Local
Government Program Services grants is also available on the UBCM
website.
Community Emergency Preparedness Fund:
Upcoming intake deadlines for CEPF funding streams:
- Emergency Support Services – January 29, 2021
- Flood Risk Assessment, Flood Mapping and Flood Mitigation
Planning – February 26, 2021
- Emergency Operations Centres and Training – March
26, 2021
Regional
Community to Community Forums: The goal of a Regional
C2C Forum is increased understanding and improved overall
relations between First Nations and local governments. Forum
events are intended to provide a time and place for dialogue
to build on opportunities, support reconciliation efforts,
and resolve issues of common responsibility, interest or
concern.
Read the full UBCM article.
|
Act or Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
COVID-19 Related Measures Act |
Nov. 9/20 |
by Reg 267/2020 |
Nov. 13/20 |
by Reg 269/2020 |
Nov. 24/20 |
by Reg 271/2020 |
COVID-19 (Residential Tenancy Act and Manufactured
Home Park Tenancy Act) (No. 3) Regulation (267/2020) |
NEW
Nov. 9/20 |
see Reg 267/2020 |
MISCELLANEOUS
|
Miscellaneous News:
10 Ways Canada's Consumer Privacy Protection Act
Will Impact Privacy Practices
On November 17, 2020, the federal government proposed dramatic
changes to how Canada will enforce privacy law, ushering in a
new legal regime to protect individuals' personal information
– and to regulate organizations' privacy practices. Bill C-11: the Digital Charter
Implementation Act creates the Consumer Privacy Protection Act
(CPPA) to replace the federal Personal Information and Electronics
Documents Act (PIPEDA), and codify in law
organizations' obligations respecting the collection, use and
disclosure of personal information rather than merely rely on
the Canadian Standard Association (CSA) Model Code. The federal
government says it estimates 18 months for the CPPA to go
through the legislative process and become law, though this is
always difficult to gauge. It might be derailed by, for
example, a federal election or the ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic
– but it might not. It's still early days, but if the
CPPA (or some form of it) passes, it will take organizations
time to put the necessary compliance processes in place. Here
are 10 ways the Consumer Privacy Protection Act will impact
organizations' Canadian privacy practices. Read the full article by Sarah Anderson Dykema, CIPP/C, Lawyer at
McInnes Cooper, David Fraser, Privacy Lawyer, Partner at
McInnes Cooper.
Update: Face Masks or Face Coverings in
British Columbia Courthouses
Effective immediately, people attending courthouses in British
Columbia are required to wear a face mask or face covering,
including in entrances, lobbies, waiting areas, registries,
hallways, stairways, restrooms and elevators. In addition,
people are required to wear a face mask or face covering in
courtrooms unless the presiding judge, justice, master or
registrar directs otherwise. Face masks or face coverings must
be worn in a manner that cover a person's nose and mouth. If
you do not have a face mask or face covering, Sheriffs will
provide one when you enter the courthouse. While wearing a face
mask or face covering can reduce the spread of infection, it
does not substitute for physical distancing, which must be
maintained whenever possible. The requirement to wear a face
mask or face covering does not apply: Visit the Courts of
British Columbia website to read this and other important related announcements.
New Bill Would Give Provinces Discretion to
Regulate Single Event Sport Betting
David Lametti, federal justice minister and Canada's attorney
general, introduced a bill on Nov. 26 that would
decriminalize single event sport betting.
The proposed amendments to s. 207(4)(b) of the Criminal Code
would give provinces and territories the power to manage,
regulate and license single event sport betting, meaning
betting on the outcome of a single sporting game with the
exception of horse racing, in their respective jurisdictions.
Currently, the Criminal Code bans all forms of
gambling, subject to certain exceptions, which include the
lottery schemes of provinces and territories, betting between
private citizens under specific circumstances, and betting
regulated by the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency. Read the full article by Bernise Carolino,
published on Canadian Lawyer.
Cybersecurity Among Factors Driving
Privacy Law Reform in Canada
The digital economy has changed the way we live and the way
organizations carry on business. It has also raised unique
privacy challenges that were not imaginable when Canada's
private-sector privacy laws were originally drafted.
Organizations are increasingly collecting and compiling
considerable amounts of personal information, including
sensitive personal information, and using it for a wide range
of purposes, including data analytics and artificial
intelligence (AI), to better serve their customers.
Legislators across Canada and the rest of the world are
attempting to modernize legislation to keep up with these
advances. The European Union bolstered its privacy laws in
2018, enacting the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Legislatures in other jurisdictions followed, including in
California, Japan, Korea and Brazil. In Canada, the federal
government and several provincial governments have signalled
their intention to modernize their privacy legislation. Read
the full article by Wendy Mee, Marie-Hélène Constantin and
Alexandra Luchenko with Blake, Cassels
& Graydon LLP.
Society Membership Criteria: A Reminder from the
BC Court of Appeal on the Importance of Clear Bylaws
The recent decision of Farrish v Delta Hospice Society,
2020 BCCA 312 ["Farrish"]
confirms the significance of properly adhering to bylaws for
societies under the Societies Act [the "Act"],
as well as the consequences of failing to do so.
Farrish involved an appeal of a decision under the Act
that 310 membership applicants had been improperly rejected by
Delta Hospice Society ["DHS"], a non-profit society that
provides palliative care and support to persons in the last
stages of living. Following a change in its Board of Directors
in 2019, DHS suspended offering medical assistance in dying
["MAiD"] on its premises. DHS subsequently set an annual
extraordinary meeting for the purpose of changing its
constitution and bylaws to represent the Board's anti-MAiD
views and the religious principles of DHS. Prior to this
meeting, DHS granted membership to applicants who held
anti-MAiD views, but simultaneously rejected 310 applications
from those seen as pro-MAiD or potentially pro-MAiD. The
chambers judge held that the Board had acted contrary to the
"open" membership contemplated by DHS's bylaws, which gave no
discretion to screen applicants. Furthermore, the directors'
actions were improper and lacked good faith. Read the full article by Raman Johal, Areet Kaila
and Julia Tikhonova with Clark Wilson LLP.
|
Act or Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
There
were no amendments this month. |
MOTOR
VEHICLE & TRAFFIC |
Motor Vehicle and Traffic
News:
CVSE Bulletins & Notices
The following notice was posted recently by CVSE:
- CT Notice 06/20 – Planned System
Outage 6 pm November 28th to 6 pm November 29th Will
Interrupt the Issuing of Overheight and Overwidth Permits
For more information on these and other items, visit the CVSE
website.
|
Act or Regulation Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
Violation Ticket Administration and
Fines Regulation (89/97) |
Nov. 13/20 |
by Reg 269/2020 |
Nov. 24/20 |
by Reg 271/2020 |
Zero-Emission Vehicles Act |
Nov. 1/20 |
by 2019 Bill 28, c. 29, sections 17 and 18 only (in force Reg. 196/2020), Zero-Emission Vehicles Act |
Zero-Emission Vehicles Regulation (196/2020) |
Nov. 1/20 |
by Reg. 196/2020 |
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY |
Occupational Health & Safety
News:
December 2020 Virtual Public Hearing on
Proposed Regulatory Amendments
– from WorkSafeBC
WorkSafeBC has rescheduled the public hearing on proposed
amendments to Parts 6, 8, 16, 18, and 21 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
to December 10, 2020. In light of the ongoing and rapidly
evolving COVID-19 pandemic, and in an effort to maximize
physical distancing, the public hearing will be held virtually.
The virtual public hearing will be streamed live in two
sessions. The first will be from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the
second will be from 3 to 5 p.m. Visit WorkSafeBC for further details.
Mandatory Face Coverings in Indoor Public Spaces
On November 24, 2020, the Province passed Ministerial
Order No. M425/2020 requiring face coverings to be
worn in "indoor public spaces" as defined in the Order. Indoor
public spaces include retail businesses, restaurants, common
areas of office buildings, city halls, community and recreation
centres, and libraries. Face coverings, defined as masks or
tightly woven fabrics that cover the nose and mouth, must be
worn in indoor public spaces by all British Columbians, 12
years and older, subject to a few exceptions. Read the full bulletin by Amy O'Connor, Elizabeth
Anderson, and Michael Moll of Young Anderson, Barristers &
Solicitors.
Challenges Faced by Public and Private Sector
Vehicle Drivers in the Age of COVID-19
Opinion
Predictions have "contactless" journeys as a safer alternative
to help people limit their interactions with key touchpoints in
public travel. In places like the UK, for example, limiting the
circulation of hard money, is just one such attempt to promote
safe travel. This comes as an answer to rising safety concerns.
In the UK, taxi death rates involving COVID-19 are one of the
highest compared to other occupations, according to official figures. Yet, when
it comes to transportation – public, private, or
commercial – this once bustling sector is still evolving
to understand how it keep can both passengers and drivers
protected. Read the full article by Fraser Rankin, published
on the Canadian Occupational Safety website.
WorkSafe BC Updates Guidelines – (November 13)
– from WorkSafeBC:
A number of Occupational Health and Safety regulation
guidelines were updated on November. These include:
Guidelines – Occupational Health and Safety Regulation
- Part 3 Rights and Responsibilities
- Part 5 Chemical Agents and Biological Agents
- Part 18 Traffic Control
- Part 20 Construction, Excavation and Demolition
- Part 24 Diving, Fishing and Other Marine Operations
New and revised guidelines are posted for a 60-day preliminary
period, during which time the stakeholder community may comment and request revisions. Visit WorkSafe BC Updates page for these and
other changes.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information
|
There
were no amendments this month. |
PROPERTY
& REAL ESTATE |
Property and Real Estate News:
A "Rent" Subsidy That's Not Just for Tenants: A Guide
to the
New Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy
On November 19, 2020, the new federal Canada Emergency Rent
Subsidy ("CERS") was enacted into law by Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Income
Tax Act (Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency
Wage Subsidy) receiving Royal Assent. The CERS takes
effect as of September 27, 2020 and continues to June 2021.
Note that Bill C-9 only provides details for the first 12 weeks
of the program, so details may change after December 19, 2020.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced today that applications
will open on Monday, November 23, 2020.
A few highlights about the CERS:
- It is not limited to rent, but can also subsidize the
carrying costs of business property:
Despite its name, the CERS does not only subsidize commercial
rent paid by tenants. It also subsidizes certain carrying
costs (mortgage, insurance, property tax) paid by owners of
property used in connection with a business, other than
property used primarily to earn rental income (which will
generally disqualify commercial landlords).
Read the full article by Christopher Ross, Richard Lord and Adrienne Woodyard with DLA Piper LLP.
Significant Risks to Buyers and Sellers of Residential
Tenant Occupied Property which are not
Addressed in the Typical Standard Form Real Estate Contract
In the last several years, our province has implemented
significant measures intended to protect tenants of residential
housing. Some of this legislation has inadvertently exposed
another group of vulnerable consumers, buyers and sellers of
residential housing, to risks never seen before in the context
of the sale of residential property which is occupied by a
residential tenant.
This article discusses the most common and significant sources
of risk the author has started to see develop rapidly in BC
since the recent legislative change. This article also provides
suggestions about how to mitigate that risk until there is
greater industry awareness about the issue, and further
legislative reform. Read the full article by Michael Drouillard with
Harper Grey LLP.
British Columbia's New Land Owner Transparency
Act
British Columbia's Land Owner Transparency Act
("LOTA") is coming into force effective as of November 30,
2020. LOTA creates a land owner transparency registry for
ownership of real property in BC and imposes disclosure
obligations on both existing and new owners of real property.
Due to its expansive scope, we anticipate that LOTA will have a
significant impact on most owners of real property or interests
in real property in BC including individuals, corporations,
partnerships and trusts. This bulletin will summarize the key
provisions of LOTA and its regulations.
On May 16, 2019, LOTA passed third reading in the legislative
assembly of BC and received Royal Assent. On September 20,
2020, the Lieutenant Governor of BC signed Order in Council 549 containing the Land Owner Transparency Regulation (the
"Regulation") and bringing LOTA and the Regulation into force
effective on November 30, 2020. Read the full article by Catherine Gibson and Robert Dallakyan with DLA Piper.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
COVID-19 (Residential Tenancy Act and Manufactured
Home Park Tenancy Act) (No. 3) Regulation (267/2020) |
NEW
Nov. 9/20 |
see Reg 267/2020 |
Financial Products Disclosure Regulation (573/2004) (formerly
titled Marketing of Financial Products Regulation) |
Nov. 1/20 |
by Reg 227/2020 |
Land Owner Transparency Act |
NEW
Nov. 30/20 |
c. 23, SBC 2019, Bill 23, sections 1 to 29, 39 to 108 only
(in force by Reg 250/2020 and Reg 251/2020) |
Land Owner Transparency Regulation (250/2020) |
NEW
Nov. 30/20 |
see Reg 250/2020 |
Land Title Act |
Nov. 30/20 |
by 2019 Bill 23, c. 28, sections 109, 113 to 116 only (in force
by Reg 250/2020), Land Owner Transparency Act |
Land Title and Survey Authority Act |
Nov. 30/20 |
by 2019 Bill 23, c. 28, sections 122, 124 and 125 (part) only
(in force by Reg 250/2020), Land Owner Transparency Act |
WILLS & ESTATES |
Wills and Estates News:
Powers of Attorney: Consider Allowing the Person You
Appoint to
Use Your Wealth to Support Your Spouse and Family
When acting as an attorney under an enduring power of attorney
in British Columbia for someone who has lost the capacity to
make her own decisions, the attorney must act in the best
interest of the person who appointed her. The word "attorney,"
in this context does not mean a lawyer, but rather the person
appointed in the power of attorney. (If I may digress a little,
although some refer to the attorney as the "power of attorney,"
a power of attorney is actually the document, rather than the
person appointed.) But whether you call her an "attorney" or
"power of attorney," the principle that she must act in the
best interest of the person who appointed her generally makes
sense. You don't want to give someone the power of sell your
house, or withdraw your investments to someone who is going to
take your money or give it to someone else, leaving you
impoverished. But as we will see, it is not always that
straightforward. Read the full article by Stan Rule with Sabey Rule LLP.
No Legislative Gap in Assisted Human Reproduction
Legislation, B.C. Court of Appeal Says
B.C.'s highest court has ruled a woman cannot use her late
husband's reproductive material to have a new child, despite
her assertions he wanted a larger family during life.
The B.C. Court of Appeal decision in L.T. v. D.T. Estate
2020 BCCA 328 gives interpretation to the federal Assisted Human Reproduction Act
(AHRA) and its regulations, which prohibit the removal of human
reproductive material without the donor's prior, informed
written consent. The couple in question, identified as Mr. and
Ms. T, were married and had one child when Mr. T died.
According to court documents, Mr. T made comments about wanting
to expand his family but they had never given any thought to
the posthumous use of his reproductive material. Read the full article by Ian Burns, published on The Lawyers
Daily.
Wills Variation – Overcoming Estrangement
Perhaps top amongst the purported reasons for disinheritance
between a parent and child is alleged estrangement and such
cases often present difficult wills variation cases as the
facts are invariably diametrically opposed.
It is however very important to get to the basis of why/how
the estrangement was caused – when I see a child leave
home at an early age it is invariably for good reason.
A will-maker's reasons for disinheriting a child may negate
his obligations to that child; however, the reasons must be
valid and rational at the time of the will-maker's death
– valid in the sense of being based on fact, and rational
in the sense that there is a logical connection between the
reason and the act of disinheritance. See Kelly v. Baker,
[1996] B.C.J. No. 3050, at para. 58. Read the full article by Trevor Todd at
disinherited.com.
BC Court Finds Father had Good
Reason to Disinherit Two Sons
If you have been left out of your parent's will or not treated
equally when compared with your siblings, it may be open to you
to bring a wills variation claim, asking the court to change
the will in your favour after your parent's death. However, as
the court's decision in Kong v. Kong, 2015
BCSC 1669 demonstrates, there are circumstances
where the BC courts will uphold the decision of a parent to
disinherit a child. Mr. Kong had seven children, all of
whom were adults when Mr. Kong died in 2012. In his will, Mr.
Kong left the majority of his estate to his youngest son
Jackson. Read the full article published by Onyx Law Group
on their Estate Litigation and Family Law blog.
|
Act or Regulation
Affected |
Effective
Date |
Amendment Information |
There
were no amendments this month. |
The
content of this document is intended for client use only.
Redistribution to anyone other than Quickscribe clients
(without the prior written consent of Quickscribe) is
strictly prohibited.
QUICKSCRIBE SERVICES LTD.
DISCLAIMER
The Reporter includes articles that should be used for
information and educational purposes only and are not intended
to be a source of legal advice. Please consult
with a lawyer before choosing to act on any information
included in the Reporter. The content in each article is owned
by its respective author.
UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS EMAIL SERVICE
To unsubscribe from this service, click here. |